"Social justice" is nothing but a euphemism for theft. There's nothing "just" about it. Why the constant compulsion on the left to lie and deceive? Why not call it "social compassion" or something more accurate? Why this need for authoritarian thought control and manipulation? That's a form of violence; don't you understand that?

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

We don't exist in a natural environment; we exist in an environment which we have created. Might be an idea to try to create one which actually meets people's needs and offers rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles.

We don't exist in a natural environment; we exist in an environment which we have created. Might be an idea to try to create one which actually meets people's needs and offers rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles.

Yeah, like floating in nice identical sustenance/entertainment vats, all nice and cared-for, happy, and equal-like.

We don't exist in a natural environment; we exist in an environment which we have created. Might be an idea to try to create one which actually meets people's needs and offers rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles.

There you go, using that term again yet I don't think you know what it means._________________Abolish public schools.

We don't exist in a natural environment; we exist in an environment which we have created. Might be an idea to try to create one which actually meets people's needs and offers rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles.

My rewarding and fulfilling lifestyle includes world travel. I will quit my job and rely on social justice to fulfill my every need._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

Of course people have to work. The point is to run things to create the most benefit for the most people rather than the most benefit for the richest people.

Oh, that's "The Point", is it? Where is that written? Some kind of axiom, is that? (What does that fluff mean, anyway? Is that a "maximin" creteria? A minimax? Maximum with minimum regrets? And, who says so?) Also, what is that "the point" of (i.e., it's the point of what, generally speaking, and upon what is the existence of that justified)?

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me -- a bunch of illogical newspeak to, as it were, "rationalize" theft.

Of course people have to work. The point is to run things to create the most benefit for the most people rather than the most benefit for the richest people.

So why don't you do something about it, except being a lemming and voting for a con-artist who's not gonna change anything?

mcgruff wrote:

We don't exist in a natural environment; we exist in an environment which we have created. Might be an idea to try to create one which actually meets people's needs and offers rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles.

Actually, we still exist in natural environment. There is no other environment. The idea that we have somehow transcedended nature and are free from the toil of gravity and enthropy is as silly as idea of Santa Claus.

That sounds nice but do ends justify means? Are injustices against individuals permissible to achieve social justice?

indeed. So, what are the means? Generally, the means are through taxation. While some of you call that "theft", it clearly isn't. Having a temporary safety net for those who recently lost their job (as happens in downturns) is rather nice. I like that I have that (though not quite yet, but next year!), I like that my neighbour has that, and I like that someone in Scotland has that. The current system here is out of whack, but the basic idea is good.

Of course people have to work. The point is to run things to create the most benefit for the most people rather than the most benefit for the richest people.

So why don't you do something about it, except being a lemming and voting for a con-artist who's not gonna change anything?

mcgruff wrote:

We don't exist in a natural environment; we exist in an environment which we have created. Might be an idea to try to create one which actually meets people's needs and offers rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles.

Actually, we still exist in natural environment. There is no other environment. The idea that we have somehow transcedended nature and are free from the toil of gravity and enthropy is as silly as idea of Santa Claus.

Silly or not, it's highly convenient if you're trying to dream up new axioms by which people should subordinate themselves to whatever slavery has evolved into most recently.

Actually, we still exist in natural environment. There is no other environment. The idea that we have somehow transcedended nature and are free from the toil of gravity and enthropy is as silly as idea of Santa Claus.

no, we don't. we live in a society, which is not natural. It is by definition not natural (here, natural as opposed to man made). In our natural state, starvation is rife and life expectancy is about 35 years.

Actually, we still exist in natural environment. There is no other environment. The idea that we have somehow transcedended nature and are free from the toil of gravity and enthropy is as silly as idea of Santa Claus.

no, we don't. we live in a society, which is not natural. It is by definition not natural (here, natural as opposed to man made). In our natural state, starvation is rife and life expectancy is about 35 years.

So, about when did we stop living in this 'natural' state, and how did that come about?

Also, how do you reconcile this pontification with the fact that, in general, the hungriest peoples on the planet are the most collectivist?

Actually, we still exist in natural environment. There is no other environment. The idea that we have somehow transcedended nature and are free from the toil of gravity and enthropy is as silly as idea of Santa Claus.

no, we don't. we live in a society, which is not natural. It is by definition not natural (here, natural as opposed to man made). In our natural state, starvation is rife and life expectancy is about 35 years.

I think you have hard time distinguishing between the reality of a society and the ideological sense of it. We are not there yet. Not everybody is on a same page, and that page can only be organic, evolutionary shift in consciousness, not some superimposed state balooney.

Just the fact that state is comprised of people who are basically seeking a shortcut which puts them in good spot (nice wages, comfortable work, etc etc) straight from high-school via bunch of political bullshit, while you still have people working their asses off in environments disconnected from biological and if you want spiritual needs of human beings. The lives and energy of those people that work themselves to ruin is exploited via taxes to prop up an illusion of advanced civilization, which is real only for select few.

So, about when did we stop living in this 'natural' state, and how did that come about?

don't be obtuse. The use of the word natural is clearly in contrast to human made.

Quote:

Also, how do you reconcile this pontification with the fact that, in general, the hungriest peoples on the planet are the most collectivist?

They are absolutely tiny and collectivist. A libertarian wet dream. If you are referring to major states like the USSR, I don't advocate a socialist society. I advocate a free market society with govt provided safety net. In america, you guys are kind of screwed. You have intense govt intervention, without a big safety net.

don't be obtuse. The use of the word natural is clearly in contrast to human made.

That just cartesian reductionist indoctrination that makes you believe that there is some mystical line on the ground with a sign that says "nature begins here". Where is that line? When you exit apartment, leave pavement, or step off the road on the grass?

We are still a part of natural world, and we only fuel our illusion with fossil fuels, which is running out, and we are waging wars over it in pretty much the same way chimp tribes fight each other for territory and resources.

don't be obtuse. The use of the word natural is clearly in contrast to human made.

That just cartesian reductionist indoctrination that makes you believe that there is some mystical line on the ground with a sign that says "nature begins here". Where is that line? When you exit apartment, leave pavement, or step off the road on the grass?

We are still a part of natural world, and we only fuel our illusion with fossil fuels, which is running out, and we are waging wars over it in pretty much the same way chimp tribes fight each other for territory and resources.

I never said we aren't part of the natural world. but much of our world is not natural. You do know that natural in this context is the opposite of artificial, right?